My take on this: You (or Ed, really) can and are going to do whatever the fuck you please, and you’ll be okay with that decision because you can never please everybody anyway. The important thing is that the mods (read: Ed) has the kind of board you (or Ed) wants to have, and to hell with anyone who feels differently. If a mod dares protest, don’t let the door bang your ass on your way out, and if a poster dares protest too vigorously, he quickly becomes an ex-poster. It’s just one big happy SDMB family, innit?
That’s the realpolitik of it, I understand. It’s just completely unnecessary, especially when the dreadful alternative is to simply let this fucking place run, as it has run, pretty smoothly for the seven years I’ve been here and for years before that.
So are we talking about a perception or a fact? You said “there is not a good track record of admitting mistakes,” which is about the facts, not the perception. I know what the perception is. I don’t want to rehash years of board history, most of which were before my time as a moderator, but I think the perception and the reality are different. The bottom line is that you can’t please everybody, but I don’t think the track record is bad.
Anybody ever tell you you’ve got a shit ton of complaints for somebody who thinks the place is running “pretty fucking smoothly,” pseudotriton ruber ruber?
Yes yes, the cynical realpolitik view. Golf clap for the new insight, small deduction for failing to use the sandbox analogy. No, it’s not possible to please everybody (something I should keep in mind more often), it’s also not true that everybody who is displeased or confused is written off as a crank and disregarded.
Difference of opinion. I was conceding the point that it wasn’t 100% bad on the part of the administration. That does not mean that the perception isn’t based firmly in reality.
Dex also said a complaint doesn’t become more valid just because a poster repeats it over and over- same goes for any kind of argument. I note that he was also talking to pseudotriton ruber ruber.
Of course you’ve never been much of a “witness.” Good at copying and pasting, for sure, but that’s a little like saying Alex the Parrot was a “witness” to conversations with his handlers. He did what parrots do, which is repeat bits of a conversation. Parrots aren’t good with context either, but they have a better excuse.
Are you saying I misrepresented his comments? That it would somehow be different if he was addressing someone else? Here’s his next comment when called on the earlier one, addressing XJETGIRLX:
So tell me more about my poor witnessing abilities.
Here is a good example of a poor exchange. Are you posting as **Marley23 **the user or are you posting as a mod trying to explain the SDMB positions?
I ask as CarnalK, who clearly does not have a great reputation, was asking a polite question and got insults back. While you are of course within your right to do this and of course it is the pit. It does not help when polite questions are answered with snark. (how Ironic in this case I realize.) I also ask as if he returns your snark and insults, he might get suspended. He cannot even know if it is safe to at this point. Especially as he is a poster that many moderators have made it clear is less than liked. It looks almost like baiting.
As to the quoted post from Dex, he did seem to exclude the category in between his effectively black and white positions. I don’t think you or anyone else would accuse me of going ape-shit. However, I am also not really in the category of “Wait and see”. We are out there. We don’t flame the moderators. At most we try to explain why we felt a decision was wrong. But we also have concerns with what we are seeing. I don’t think it is the end of the world. But the issue is not strictly restricted to those that appear to recreationally complain. I also don’t think **Loach **has ever been considered in that group. Though I cannot be sure of the reps of various posters among the moderators.
Your friend,
Jim (signature added as I mean it and mean this as a minor bit of constructive criticism)
Well it’s not possible that I’m wrong - I got a fancy pants title under my name and everthing. It’s an honest difference of opinion, like you said: nobody apologizes just because someone else says they’re wrong, but when we’re wrong or just plain unclear, which is the issue lately, I think we’re pretty good about being forthright about that.
They suck. Short sentences help? Get new hobby. Your act’s old. Witness this:
My opinions about individual posters are my own, same as my opinions on music and sports. What I’m doing here is posting about what’s going on with the state of board, answering some questions and giving my opinion about some issues without doing the ‘mod hat on’ thing and actively moderating.
I don’t have a problem with your comments, but this is really naive. I answered Loach’s questions politely and I’ll keep doing so, same with you. I’m required to be fair with people but I’m not required to ignore it when people play games.
Yes, I could tell he seemed unusually timid. Almost weeping on the inside.
I’m responding to statements and questions from CarnalK. I’m not baiting him.
I understand that. I’m saying pretty much the same thing Dex was saying, which is that, wary or otherwise, it’s more productive to wait and see, and then have a full understanding. I didn’t say everybody’s complaining recreationally. I don’t believe that Loach (or you) were doing so.
Almost, huh? lol. It’s hard to call it ironic, though, because I don’t remember Marley ever addressing me without including some snarky “you’re not wanted here” comment.
Actually I have always use **CarnalK **as a good example that the Mods do not have too heavy of a hand in moderation. This is why the “butthurt” and “FOAD” incidents look so out of character to me. It is also making me and probably others fearful that moderation is taking a turn for the harsher and less tolerant.
I am glad you are just posting as yourself and there is little reason for you not to be snarky to CarnalK if you dislike him that much. However it still leaves open the question of whether or not it is still safe for CarnalK to reply in kind or is he going to get a warning or worse for giving a mod a hard time. **Lynn **insulted Sapo, **Sapo **responded with a generic Internet insult and he got suspended. **Colibri **threatened to “use” something **Sapo **posted against him in future threads and insulted Sapo. **Sapo **uses a mild insult back and got officially warned. **Colibri **was not even in that thread as a Mod but as another poster in the pit. At least **Lynn **was in the other thread as an Admin.
Thus why I asked what I asked. You are a mod that is talking about the board. You are being snarky to CarnalK and as far as we know now, if he answers in kind, he might well get another warning. In his case it can be the final warning. When I said ‘almost baiting’, I did mean the ‘almost’ part. I think many would read your posts as baiting and many would not. It is open to interpretation but if CarnalK did respond or raise to the appearance of the bait and he got warned, it would reflect badly on you for some posters. Personally I think you were just replying to CarnalK the way I might reply to one or two posters I thoroughly disrespect. However as you are a mod it puts your words in a different light as of the last few weeks.
I read Marley23’s response as a not-particularly-thinly veiled threat. And in a thread titled as this one is, that is ironic.
I am getting the impression that TPTB are not averse to banning more people than has been historically the case, especially in the Pit.I suppose we shall see if I am wrong or not.
CarnalK’s been doing the same thing on the board for a long time. If he’s “unsure” of what he’s allowed to do, whether anything has changed or not, he can say so for himself and I am sure he won’t hesitate to let us know. CarnalK show over, let’s get back to the topic here:
This is exactly what I was posting about the other day when I said:
So, in one post you make you make a comment that looks like a threat to initiate Mod actions. In the next you claim to be just an ordinary poster.
This is exactly the kind of dual role behavior that people are noting. Do you not see that this is exactly the stuff that people are takling about where confusion exists regarding your role?
