The last thing we need is another new thread. My position is simple. TubaDiva made a bad call on closing the ATMB thread, but it is salvageable if she re-opens it with a cautionary word to Karrius and XT. No new thread necessary. Locking the thing with an ambiguous message has already caused two unnecessary threads to be spawned. She just needs to fix her understandable mistake, lest even more threads are spawned over this tempest in a teapot.
I dunno. It seemed to me that anything productive that was going to be said in ATMB had been said already. I took Tubadiva’s closure to be synonymous to “Sort it out in the parking lot.”
Apparently interested parties weren’t spouting enough vitriol for it to be pitworthy. The discussion on modding has been thrashed and no one really wants to beat up other posters on this one. IMO this is as it should be. Enough has been said. Everyone plays nice. Two threads closed.
Teapot, you say? Sounds like you need to open a thread in Cafe Society.
In the context of what was being discussed I still fail to see how they weren’t about Mod actions. I brought up the fact that, to me, Der Trihs had done it again…he had flamed in GD with no consequences. Which was the theme of the OP.
As for it being about personal opinions, well duh…the entire thread was about personal opinions as to whether or not Der Trihs was getting a pass from the Mods or whether ‘everyone does it’. It’s all about the POV of the poster.
The level of discussion had not gotten heated enough to warrant a Mod note or warning, IMHO, but if the Mods felt differently they should have done so. There was no reason to close the thread in question in the first place. I was closing down on arguing with Karrius in any case since there didn’t seem to be a lot more benefit in rehashing our opinions on the supposed ‘hijack’ (which was directly about DT for my part).
Finally, as to my confusion about what Tuba meant, again, from MY perspective there was no reason to Pit Karrius, nor, to me, had the discussion gotten all that heated or rancorous. There was certainly a difference of opinion, but it was all related to the OP, even Karrius view point which, to sum up, is that DT doesn’t do anything that everyone else in GD does (and that calling all Libertarians psychopaths is fine if a Libertarian creates a thread where he makes an ass out of himself).
Yes, this.
Really? That’s how it should go around here? A thread questioning moderation should be opened in ATMB, and if it veers off track, it should be closed, rather than the posters responsible for the hijacking being modded, and then a *new *thread should be opened in order to discuss the topic brought forth in the original thread? How ridiculous is this?
(I’m talking about this rule in general, NOT about Der Trihs)
But this rule (moderator issue-> ATMB, poster issue -> Pit) effectively prohibits any discussion of any moderator/s-treatment-of-a-specific-poster issues. In a large MB community, these issues will* come up.
The overarching SDMB rule is “don’t be a jerk”. It’s absolutely possible to get a warning in a thread for jerkish behavior, right (where the mod warning mentions “don’t be a jerk” instead of any other specific rules)? And it’s possible that a poster can be careful enough to post something that goes right up to that jerk line without quite going over?
What about if a poster does exactly that over and over and over again? This rule clearly and decisively prohibits posters from providing important context about a problem.
A poster’s actions should be evaluated in context, which includes their posting history and patterns. I don’t think anyone expects a moderator to comb through a poster’s old posts looking for problematic-but-not-bad-enough-for-a-note/warning behavior before taking action in a specific thread (whether an official note or warning or unofficial note).
However, the above rule actively prohibits others from providing examples that show a problematic pattern. And yes, that context is ABSOLUTELY important. Classic real world example:
Mom is driving three siblings (Bert, Ernie and Elmo :p) in the car. Bert starts picking on Ernie and starts slap-hitting, turning it into a full on car fight. Mom says, “knock it off! I don’t want either of you to so much as touch each other, are we clear?” After a minute, Bert holds his finger up to Ernie’s eye (keeping it a fraction of an inch away) and quietly says, “I’mnottouchingyou I’mnottouchingyou I’mnottouchingyou I’mnottouchingyou” until Ernie is fed up and slaps the finger away. Bert then says, “moooom! Ernie just hit me!”
It’s true that Ernie broke the letter of mom’s law (no hitting/touching). But it’s clear that Bert intentionally broke the spirit of the law (stop fighting and being annoying shits). If mom was focused on driving and didn’t notice Bert’s finger routine, it’s understandable if she yells at Ernie. But if Elmo is in the very back seat and tells mom the entire story, it’d be total bullshit if mom didn’t scold Bert, too. Or if Ernie somehow refrained from lashing out and Elmo tells mom what Bert is doing, it’d be bullshit for mom to say, “well, I said no touching and Bert isn’t breaking that rule.”
And what if this happened over and over again on different car trips (with mom, or with dad, or with other drivers) and Bert still never gets punished for being an asshole?
I think the point is they were not discussing some abstract equivalence of arguments, but trying to argue whether there was equivalence because it affects their perspective on the topic of how DT is moderated. The argument was one person trying to give a specific example of unfairness and the other person not agreeing the situations were the same, so rejecting the conclusion that moderation of DT was unfair.
It was a bit down in the weeds and stuck in a case of “we just don’t see this the same way”, but the intent was still related to the topic of how DT is moderated.
Agreed. So what is the proper method if someone wanted to discuss how poster **jtgain **is a problem for the board and why don’t the mods do something about it?
If someone posted it in the Pit, then it’s closed for criticizing the moderation there. If it is in ATMB, then it’s closed for criticizing me there. Where should the thread go?
Yes. That’s how I see it, as well. As armedmonkey said, it seems like they just wanted the thread closed and looked for an excuse to do so.
Since I’ve been here there’ve been at least two threads in ATMB criticizing the mods’ handling of Der during which several people did criticize Der’s posting style.
Yes, the last one was closed but due to a hijack not due to criticism of Der’s posting style or the mods’ handling of him.
Note, I’m hardly a fan of Der.
Eh, that’s just Your Humble Opinion!
I think that thread belongs in ATMB, but should avoid calling jtgain a poopeyhead and instead focus on the actions and statements that he makes. In other words, I think the original thread conversation was not a hijack. I’m not sure how productive it was being at that point, it was stuck in a disagreement loop.
I thought the rule was that you’re free to pit a mod or an admin, just not for their activity as a mod or admin. If you’ve got a problem with how they mod, it goes in this forum. If you have a problem with one of their (non-moderating) responses, you can pit them just like any other poster. Isn’t this the way it is?
That is my understanding. You can pit them as a poster for one of their posts as a poster. Not for a post of them acting as a mod.
That is perfectly consistent with the post by Miller.
A complaint about a mod or admin that is not about their moderation is a complaint about another poster.