[Moderating]
If you want to take issue with tomndebb’s moderating in that thread, start another thread discussing it. Let’s not sidetrack this general discussion with your particular beef with a moderator.
Yes, but what’s to stop the moderators from arbitrarily declaring the thread “off track” and closing it? When that thread was closed, the propriety of the criticism of tomndebb was still being debated. If the thread is still going on, and everyone is being civil, why not leave it open until it fizzles out? It’s not like ATMB is an active enough forum that keeping the thread open would force otherwise worthy threads off the front page.
The same thing that keeps them from doing it everywhere else. In other words, nothing but their honesty. And the fact that people will complain afterwards if they think it was unfair.
Now that I understand Giraffe’s complaint, I see how my suggestion would have been pointless. I actually agree with the mods on this. If you want to flame a poster for his comment to the mods, do what you do in every other forum: Start a Pit thread, and put in a courtesy link to the Pit in the thread, and a courtesy link to the thread in the Pit.
It was my understanding that directly flaming another poster with obscenities isn’t allowed in the Pit either.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood, but ISTM what the mods truly wish to do is avoid harsh criticism sprinkled with the occasional naughty word while at the same time having the excuse of closing the thread should the tone venture anywhere near acrimony.
There was a time when it was considered part of the position of moderator to expect the occasional pitting. One of the biggest selling points of the board was that not even the administration was above criticism. Now posters have to differentiate between a moderator posting as a poster or as a moderator prior to starting a thread, and that moderator can decide if the tone is ‘nice enough’ in ATMB if they want to do something about the complaint. This leaves the poster jumping through so many hoops that it effectively discourages most criticism. And the mods actually all voted for it? Unanimous you say? I’m shocked I tell you, SHOCKED.
Thanks for trying Giraffe.
And whose fault is that?
Weren’t you the one that was complaining in your first post in this thread that the Pit is boring now? Here’s your chance to liven it up, start your Liberal pitting thread.
Really? That wasn’t a big selling point for me, but in any case, you can still criticise them in ATMB. If you’re referring to an option that you used to have, but no longer have, is what you mean that one of the biggest selling points for you was that you could call the administrators assholes?
ETA: I see you saying that it’s too difficult for people to know how to disagree with a moderator without insulting them. You must not read Great Debates (or heck, any other forum) too often. I see plenty of people disagreeing in Great Debates, for example, without having to resort to Pit behaviour.
Not at all. I’ll try to be clearer.
In the vast wasteland of internet message boards, there are very few that allow any statement on board administration that does not conform with universal fellatio. Even if the criticism is constructive and in some cases necessary, many board admins refuse to acknowledge anything other than echo chamber of how wonderful the board is. I have seen threads closed, threads disappeared, posters suspended or banned all because they dared to suggest the admins could be handling a situation better. I had been relieved to find the SDMB different in that respect.
Certainly there are posters here who have partaken of the kool aid a bit more than is good for them and spout the line of not allowing the door etc., but I had genuinely thought that the rule of putting board criticism in the Pit an excellent leveler. People make mistakes. No one is immune not even board administrators. Why remove posters’ one option to frankly address their concerns? If there truly is no difference between the complaints being here and being in the Pit, why was it moved? I think there is a difference. Having moved the “complaints box” here restricts what can and cannot be posted to the degree that even inflection can be viewed as an insult and threads locked. How is an administrator’s or moderator’s interpretation of an innocuous comment as insult and locking the thread any different from saying that no negative input is acceptable?
Considering that mod actions are still openly criticized, and that the only thing that has changed is we now lack are the distracting and irrelevant personal insults, there’s no merit to your argument that we’re “avoid[ing] harsh criticism”. If you can’t complain without throwing in personal insults, you’re probably not doing it right.
Also, considering that the majority of threads criticizing staff actions have been left open and, in some cases, seen multiple pages, there’s not much credence given to the idea that we’re closing threads to kill the criticism. There have been some threads that have been closed because they’ve either wandered off-track and given no sign of going back, or they’ve devolved into users sniping at each other, but those threads are in the minority. And what we’ve said in this thread is that we’ll try to do a better job in determining which threads are salveagable and which ones are not.
And now we can expect the occasional ATMBing. Frankly, I think this is much better for the board overall. Where the environment of the Pit just encouraged needless and occaisonally creative insults; where posters used that forum to tear into each other regardless of the thread topic; and where a good number of posters avoided those threads because of all the noise they had to slough through to get to the signal, ATMB provides a much more accessible place to share your concerns. The board benefits from the increased involvement.
As evidenced by this thread and multiple others that deal with complaints about staff, it’s obvious that we still aren’t above criticism.
So, the “hoop” one has to jump through is to not insult others? I really don’t see that as a stumbling block, considering that it’s the expected behavior in all the fora on this board, minus one. And with a minor exception here and there over the years since I’ve been a mod, I don’t see very many people getting confused about when we’re acting as mods or posting as regular posters.
The hoop is not posting anything that can be construed as an insult while still providing critical input. Considering the defensive posture being exhibited, I don’t think my point is moot.
‘Defensive’ is replying to the concerns you’ve raised? I’m afraid we’re going to have to disagree on that.
Otherwise, I still don’t think your hoop is an issue. We’re asking that you refrain from personal insults. Basically, don’t call the staff “assholes” when expressing concerns about a closed thread or what you consider a flawed ruling. I really don’t see this as insurmountable, especially since it happens every day in GD (and to a lesser degree, Cafe Society) where posters are openly critical of the views of others without getting to the point of personal insults.
Then why move it? Has it not already been established that we’re not allowed to directly call anyone ‘asshole’ in the Pit? I post infrequently so I may have missed the update but the last I had heard directly attacking another poster mod or otherwise is not acceptable even in the Pit. I am not trying to be difficult but the distinction does seem odd if the rules are exactly the same as they would be had the forum not been changed.
Who said there was no difference? There is a difference. In ATMB you can tell a moderator “you were wrong” but you can’t tell the moderator “you were wrong you moron”.
This is wrong. You can attack other posters in the Pit. There are certain expressions that are not allowed. Yo ucan use the word “asshole” but only in moderation. See the stickies in the BBQ Pit. For example, this one: Restricted language in the Pit.
“Asshole” was just an example; personal insults cover a wider range than just “asshole”. Posters still insult one another in the Pit and discussions turn hostile and personal, thus distracting from the concerns expressed in the OP.
None of this is to be construed as a condemnation of the Pit; I just think ATMB is more appropriate venue for people who don’t want to holler at each other, and who hope concerns can be explored without the thread turning vicious and personal.
Once again, you surprise me. You say that it’s impossible to give critical input without using terms that would be construed as an insult at this board?
I propose to you this instructive experiment: post in Great Debates the OP “The Bible is inerrant” and then see how people can give critical input while remaining inside non-Pit rules.
And how is this different than any other discussion in any other forum? Poster 2 sees something in any forum outside the Pit that pisses him off. His options are, start a thread in the Pit, or not. If, for poster 2, this “serious undertaking” of starting a thread in the Pit is beyond his ken, then them’s the breaks, and personally I don’t feel all that much sympathy for poster 2.
Not at all. Had the word impossible been my intent it would have been in my post. You don’t find “can be construed” a subjective measurement? Certainly there are times when insult is inferred without just cause. I find it difficult to believe this board is exempt from misunderstandings. But an example.
I find what Una posted on the first page of this thread to be perfectly acceptable, yet she was reminded of the rules even though it was not ‘technically’ a warning. At the same time, you felt perfectly within your right to post the same pejorative she used. Does that not imply a different set of rules? If moderators administrators and whatever category SDSAB fall under have the ability to use whatever language they feel appropriate while others are not it does seem to set up a dynamic some may construe as unfair. Especially if that other poster is not allowed to respond in kind.
Ah, thank you then. I was unaware it had changed.
I think you’ll have to be more specific here because I don’t see what example you are trying to bring up. What pejorative did Una use, that caused her to receive a warning, that I also later used?
That what had changed? We were always allowed to attack other posters in The Pit. Even when the new rules about “civility in The Pit” were introduced.
Goodness. I’m fairly sure I said she was not technically warned, but reminded of the rules. How can I further clarify my position? It seems I’m not adequately communicating my points to you.
In any case, her post was the third in this thread. Here. CKDexterHaven reprimanded her here. Although she was exhibiting precisely same kool aid ‘leave if you do not like it’ attitude I mentioned earlier, I fail to see what I or any other adult should find offensive about her post other than a slight eye roll reaction at her intent. The language was not inappropriate or extraneous, it merely underlined her point. I have difficulty understanding why ‘naughty words’ cause such a response, especially given they were used in the abstract. I was not aware the moderators were such wilting flowers that they would be so deeply wounded by strong language.