Talk about illustrating my point…
Despite the fact that This Year’s Model and now TVeblen seem to feel that I’m making a career out of complaining about this place, I haven’t seen any real pattern of bad moderation lately, despite the talk about it. Granted, there have been a couple instances of thread closings that I didn’t think were justified, but I think those were fairly isolated examples of screwups. I haven’t seen any real signs of an overall pattern - I just think that the truly arguable decisions are a small minority of them, and it just tends to happen that what seem to be patterns show up when your total population (in this case, of arguable thread decisions) is small enough. There have always been arguments over thread closings and movings, and of course over warnings, but the fact that we’ve seen three or four in the past couple weeks is, in my judgment, happenstance.
Overall I’ve always been generally fairly happy with the moderation here. I think most of these decisions are not all that clear-cut. My real disagreement - and here I think Binarydrone is right - is that it seems like mods are often unfriendly or occasionally even hostile when decisions are questioned. I’ve only particularly noticed this recently, but it’s not a pervasive enough pattern that I’m willing to assume it’s evidence of any kind of change - it’s just random events segregating in seemingly non-random ways. Nevertheless, I think it’s an issue that needs to be examined and addressed.
One example was with TYM in an argument over the closing of the porn by mail thread. (The argument is a bit of a mess because it ended up smeared over two threads. Nevertheless . . . ) I don’t want to rehash the argument here, but I was not the only person who was pretty puzzled by TYM’s decision to close it. What I found most problematic was one of TYM’s statements:
I don’t think his suspicion was even remotely justified in this case, and I’m uncomfortable with questioning the motives of those of us who were arguing (especially since his decision - which he later reversed - was controversial.) I don’t like the “circling the wagons” that Binarydrone mentioned above, and I think it happened here. To me, questioning the motives of people who are arguing with a moderator’s decision is a slimy style of argument.
That said, I don’t think I’ve seen this happen on a wholesale basis, either. But it shouldn’t happen at all - honest discussion of moderator decisions is important in making this a community that fits the needs of its customers. It’s not a great direction to go in to suggest that anyone who’s unhappy is arguing from mysterious ulterior motives.
I also don’t pay enough attention to which individual mod does what to know whether certain mods seem to be particularly prone to these arguable decisions.
Giraffe, I am not trying to be combative. Honest. If I am coming off that way please understand that this is not my intent. All that I am saying is that it is my perception that there has been an overall change in the quality of the administration, and one that is not to the good. I am also not trying to stomp my foot and call you all a bunch of dicks. My point is somewhat more refined than that.
At this point, I am sure that it would be helpful if I had some constructive suggestions. I can try, but in general it is a little hard because what I am getting at is more a gestalt of the board, its tone if you will, than any one thing that I can point to.
Some things that come to mind, though: I think that closing Pit threads because they have become “ugly” has gotten a little too hair-trigger. I think that the definition of Trolling needs to be loosened and the banning of same needs to happen less (the quality of loons, and the reaction to them is half of the fun around here). I think that it would be nice to keep the “I pit my ingrown toenail” type threads out of the Pit. I think that the “no joke threads in the Pit” is silly and a killjoy. I would like to see the same rules for posting apply to moderators as they do to regular posters or, failing that, I would suggest that moderators be required to only post when making a ruling and be required to do so in an emotionally neutral way. Failing that I would like to see moderators issued secret sock accounts for when they want to post with we regular folks.
In general, all that I can say is that it seems to me as if the Administration (as a whole) has little regard for us. That was palatable to a degree when we were all a bunch of freeloaders, but very much less so now. There seems to be very little give and take as to what this place should be, and the default setting (again, in general) seems to be to take any suggestion of questioning of a moderator call as some sort of a hostile act.
I have two questions and I started to put this in ATMB, but as I’m not complaining and just curious, I felt perhaps this was a better place for it in case others may have stronger opinions about these than I do. So…
1.) Wouldn’t it be more productive, uniform and beneficial to the Powers That Be if they wouldn’t acknowledge their disdain for the anonymous boards? I mean, if they are truly as heinous as we hear, wouldn’t it be better to apply the same rule about not giving any trolls or socks attention? Considering that just feeds them. And if not, wouldn’t it only be right to also mention (if the need to condemn was present) the times they’ve apparently done a good thing? I seem to remember the issue with a poster who was helped to out some sexual predator on another board because of their involvement. Anyway, to me, that only seems fair and unbiased. Regardless, a policy of simply ignoring them would tend to be the most desirable for your situation.
2.) I realize that it is unacceptable for members to play at junior moderating. However, on more than one occasion that I can recall (and I’ll do my best to hunt up examples if anyone is interested), someone that was a former staffer has done just that. Is that allowed when the other is not? And if it isn’t, will we see (and I apologize if I’ve missed any in the past) admonitions in the threads or shall that sort of thing be taken to email, leaving the rest of us to wonder where the lines are drawn?
However, I’d like to throw in that I have no problems with personalities shining through here for anyone. It seems to me that since we’re all only human, that’s all I should expect. Beyond that, I do feel there is some extremely good work on the Dope. The aversions I have are minor and should be saved for another day when it appears overwhelming bad. Which it hasn’t to me in a while.
Thanks for any replies.
I don’t have any general complaints about the moderation here. But I am curious about fluiddruid. While I realize that one’s status as a “moderatorabile” is not directly proportional to one’s post count, how does someone become a moderator whose post count is in the low 1000’s? Under most circumstances, wouldn’t such a poster be–shall we say–jejune?
I’m not saying anything against this moderator; I’m just curious. I’m sure lots of long-term habitues of the SDMB didn’t even know who Fluiddruid was when the announcement was made.
That’s called projection in action. You’re getting back what you put out. You’re in denial about what’s happening to yourself however. That’s why the word “disingenuous” has been thrown your way by various admin staff so often lately.
And I know precisely what you’re going to do now… you’re going to get all spiteful and get all personal and write another 1500 words on what an arrogant, righteous asshole I am. Blah Blah Blah Blah. You’re probably totally right too. It still won’t change the fact that you’ll have missed the point. The moderators are just as neutral as they’ve ever been. You’ve simply been poking a stick in their eyes lately - that’s the only difference.
For the learning impaired…jejune=banal, insipid…and people say that reading Science Fiction won’t teach ya anything…
Cry me a river, dude. Funny stuff. I love this place. It rocks. Guys like you entertain me no end.
THey have no regards for us! They have no regards for us!
I think that I am going to call bullshit on that theory. I didn’t start out feeling the way that I do about the administration, rather I arrived here based on things that I have seen over the years. While I cannot claim to speak for Excalibre, I suspect that the same is true for him.
To be honest, I think that the real reason that Excalibre is getting crap at the moment is nothing more than the fact that he has admitted to openly posting on the Evil Anon Board™. Why the administration is seems to be so freaked out by that board, I will never know. I guess that they got used to unswerving devotion from the spin-off boards and are not coping too well with anything else.
I’ll say what I said in the other thread once again…CITE where Excalibre has been bad mouthing the board for anything else besides the stupiod fucking Google ads. You ass-felching mod-suckers are a bunch of know-nothing worthless sycophants. I’ve been here for five years and even I can see that the moderating has gone way downhill.
Revisiting that: Change “call bullshit” to “I must respectfully disagree”. I was honest when I said that I am not trying to be combative earlier, and it occurs to me that my last post could easily be read that way.
Actually, I illustrated with an example of This Year’s Model offering up a blanket suggestion that those questioning his closing of a thread (not one of mine!) were only doing it to spite him.
I’m not spiteful, nor am I going to get “personal” as you have shown yourself in your only interactions with me as quite wont to do. However, once again the facts do not support the assertions you are making about me. I’m not sure how I ended up on your personal enemies list, Boo Boo Foo, but suffice it to say you have not shown yourself a skilled enough judge of character for your analysis of my personality to offer much of interest.
Sigh. So much for being reasonable.
So what does that even mean? I can’t take issue with things around here without it being called whining? That it is an unreasonable expectation on my part that the moderators treat us with respect as their default setting? The issues that are on the table are so far-fetched that they are merely amusing to one of your no-doubt formidable intellect? You have so much of your identity wrapped up in the board that you lash out at any criticism? You are a pudding head with nothing more to offer the world than blanket condemnation of views that differ from your own?
Strange, I’ve always been treated with respect by the moderators and administrators of this board, when our paths have crossed. I thought it was the default setting.
Mate… just calling a spade a spade. You’re clearly hopping boards and playing the popularity game, playing the secret whispers game blah blah blah. It’s straight out of high school. Nothing about “personal enemies” going on at all. Just pointing out the humour attached to someone crying innocence while they’re simultaneously rocking the boat. Every time you cry “I JUST DON’T KNOW WHY THIS IS HAPPENING” all I hear is “Denial, Denial, Denial…”
To be fair however… you do write well. I like that about you. You’re articulate and quite witty at times. And I think we’d both agree that we’re on the verge of dragging each other down so I’m quite prepared to treat you with the utmost respect in future.
i really wasnt drunk that night 
i thought the stonehenge thread was kinda funny, maybe i just have a weird sense of humour
A lot of things are needed, but one definite quality is a level head. As is quite apparent, no matter what one does, somebody won’t like it. C’est le guerre.
As for the broader discussion…
Mods aren’t above criticism. And don’t want to be, btw. If we screw up, by all means say so. But, fair being fair, keep in mind there’s enormous room for personal interpretation. I’ve been slammed for closing a thread too quickly and leaving it open too long–for the same trainwreck. A lot of nebulous ‘board tone’ depends on personal preferences, and those preferences are all over the landscape.
If something happens that seems to be a screw up, it’s perfectly fair to raise the issue. What isn’t fair is an immediate assumption of callous contempt for posters or authoritarian nastiness just because something doesn’t sit right. Maybe it was a mistake; most of us have reread, reconsidered, reversed decisions and apologized now and then. It’s no big deal, since we sneakily avoided any promises about perfection.
To the constant critics? Okay. We’ll keep reading what you say. And thinking about it. Honestly-- no sarcasm at all. It’s a volunteer gig but a gig nonetheless. No promises that we can do everything each individual wants, but we do try hard to do as well as possible.
For what it’s worth, I think the administration is pretty poor in some areas here, but I think the moderators are fine, especially Giraffe.
Of course, I read maybe 5 threads a day so my experience is somewhat limited.
Well to be fair I am not asking that you do what everyone wants. I am asking that you do what I want. I think that we can all agree that this would be for the best. 
I must reluctantly agree that there does seem to be a hair-trigger for closing potentially interesting threads, the rules are not enforced particularly evenly, and in the last year there has seemed to have been a noticeable change in tone around here (the Not-So-Recent Unpleasantness was probably the start of the change). I’ve seen the threads a dozen times where people say that things have gone to hell in a handbasket lately, and I’ve never agreed with them before, but I do feel there has been a change in tone in the last year or so. It’s almost like - at the risk of sounding like purple prose, this Board has lost its innocence.
But, bottom line, it’s still just a message board, and while I really enjoy the community, it doesn’t affect my life all that much if the tone here changes.