Of course it’s relevant. Just because we’ve volunteered for the job doesn’t make what we do here our primary concern in life. We have jobs, families and other interests; there’s no need for us to spend a good portion of our on-line time watching one particular thread to make sure it doesn’t get out-of-hand. And the truth of the matter is is that some threads are in a position to be more troublesome than others–which is the decision that This Year’s Model made about the thread in question.
You must have missed everything I wrote after the word “irrelevant” – like the part where I explained why that particular defense was irrelevant in this particular case. Reasons like the thread was only 16 posts long, and there were never more than 6 posts in any 24-hour period. How, exactly, does that translate to me expecting the thread to be anyone’s “primary concern in life?” And how does a 16-post thread take up “a good portion” of anyone’s time?
Look, I understand that mods have to make judgment calls all of the time, I know it’s not an easy job, and this is the first time I’ve ever seriously disagreed with someone’s decision. It’s just my opinion that This Year’s Model made a mistake, and I’m frustrated at the excuses that he (she?) is presenting. I think a simple “it was my call, tough shit if you don’t like it” – while still annoying and frustrating – would have been easier to swallow than the “reasons” we’ve been given.
The thread in question had one joke post that wasn’t on topic. It wasn’t even against the rules. TWM jumped on it and closed it within 6 min.'s. No warning, no friendly reminder, more importantly no reason like the ones given in this thread. Just a “Ick” which implies he just didn’t like that link.
It was bad/lazy moderation IMO and as Misnomer said it’s not really the particular incident but the precedent that’s the problem thing.
There are a lot of contentious possibly troublesome threads on this board. I think it’s bad form to just close them as soon as anything happens in them that the mod doesn’t like which is what looks like happened here. All the rest just seems to be excuses made up after the fact.
There was nothing missed; I just don’t agree with you. This Year’s Model had already stepped in to tell people to watch it with the links. Within 16 posts, a user had already posted a link that violated the “two-click” rule. In a thread dedicated to porn rentals, that a link such of that showed up despite the years-old “two-click” rule, and despite This Year’s Model’s preemptive warning, it’s generally an inidication that the thread can/will get out of hand. It may have been relatively tame at the time of the closing, but that’s where the mod’s discretion comes into play; he/she has to decide whether the thread will attract other unwanted posts, and whether the thread is one with which it’s worth dealing. This isn’t new reasoning, nor does it set a precedent.
Personally, I found the thread interesting (and were it not for this Pit thread, I probably wouldn’t have seen it), but I don’t disagree with the reasoning in closing it.
Well, you must respect the unwritten code of the moderators I s’pose. Never go against the family!
My bad, then. Seemed like you took the word “irrelevant” out of context. I’m happy to go on disagreeing with you, though. 
Yes, unneccesarily. TYM posted right after the OP, who specifically mentioned no links and the NSFW guideline. That irked me right off the bat (assuming that we’re going to be bad is treating us like children), and implying that it was some kind of deserved warning is neither far nor accurate.
No, it did not. I quote from this very thread:
Even the link in question was tame – it was a joke! And I disagree that no precendent is set: when TYM closed the thread it had nothing to do with any rules being violated, or because it had gotten out of hand. The entire reason the thread was closed was because of “ick” – because the mod didn’t like what they saw as the new subject, and they just couldn’t let the thread get to 17 or 18 replies to see if there was, indeed, any trouble brewing. While I’ll grant that I’ve only been around here for a year, I don’t remember ever seeing such a knee-jerk closing of an IMHO or MPSIMS thread based on a personal dislike of the subject matter. That’s what seems like kind of a dangerous precedent to me.
I just want to note that there wasn’t any change of subject. There was a humourous aside that was directly related to the OP. The site linked is clearly a parody of Netflix and the like (note the dildo replacing the remote control) and was sex/porn related so even more relevent. Made perfect sense.
So in your judgement TYM, do all humourous asides call for thread closing? (Or just the one’s the squick you out?)
That’s a tiresome and ridiculous assertion, especially since I gave my reasons for why the thread should remain closed. As has been pointed out numerous times before, Mods don’t always agree on certain decisions; this just happened to be one of those times when I did agree.
Hmm… I think you might be taking that preemptive warning a little too personally. When you have as many posters as we do, and when you have as many guests who don’t always read the registration agreement closely (not to mention a fair number of high-count posters), preemptive warnings tend to save a lot of time. They’re not meant to blame anyone, they’re simply there to help reinforce board rules–just in case someone forgets what he’s not supposed to do. Preemptive warnings certainly aren’t meant to treat anyone like children, but experience has shown that a Moderator posting a reminder of the rules at the beginning of certain threads reduces the chance of someone breaking the rules.
Yep, I missed that bullet. ('Course, were that thread in MPSIMS, I would have squashed that link. Dildos sites–jokes or not–tend to be considered inappropriate by most employers. In the workplace, that is–who knows what the boss does at home.)
I’m not sure why you say “entire reason” when there were many reasons given. You’ve even argued against those reasons. You may not agree with them, but it’s not like he didn’t explain himself.
And nah, this isn’t a precedent. Plenty of threads have been closed because they pose potential problems. I know I’ve closed a few in MPSIMS and others have been closed throughout this board’s history. Some I agree with, others I don’t. But I’ve yet to see it become a problem or pattern.
Is there ANYONE on the moderator’s side on this one?
Yet another sad case of a poster not actually reading the entire thread before replying.
I read your post (about the two-click rule), but that doesn’t seem to be the real reason the thread was closed. Just an inspiration.
Not at all. It irked me, but I didn’t say anything in the thread because it wasn’t a big enough deal. I only said something about it now because you brought it up.
What irked me wasn’t the warning itself, but the fact that the OP had made mention of the very same rule. It was chaoticbear saying “I’m deliberately being careful with links and NSFW stuff” and then TYM posting immediately afterwards to say “watch the links.”
I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear enough: I meant the entire reason that was given in the closed thread.
Cool. I saw it a different way, so I exercised my Cecil-given right to complain.
IMHO, what’s telling is that TYM didn’t offer any sort of explanation save “ick” when the thread was closed, suddenly and without warning (and to call a pre-emptive link post a “warning” for thread closure is absurd). Now he’s coming up with barely rational excuses followed up with a nice aftershot of “I’ll do whatever the fuck I want” condescension. Come on, TYM. You might not reply to this post but the fact that the ONLY support you have on this one is another mod who only agrees with you for reasons you yourself disavowed in the other thread (i.e. that the link was a problem) means that you fucked up. We’d have a lot more respect for you if you would just admit it. Sure it’s embarassing, but show some character, sheesh.
You know what’s funny? The thread in question was closed 6 minutes after the “offending post” was made, yet this thread remains almost an hour after our beloved guest calls a member a “greasy fat retard”, and more than 20 minutes after she calls the entire thread “fatass faggots”, without so much as a warning.
Haha!
I sure am glad the mods are cleaning this place up, though!
Warned and closed now, Silver Fire. Thanks for the link to an amusing little thread, though.
A mere 32 minutes later. Not bad.
You know, the subject of a dildo rental is obviously NSFW, although the “offending” website doesn’t really show anything horribly NSFW. However, if you open up a thread that DISCUSSES PORN and has links to PORN WEBSITES, aren’t you going to assume that there’s a chance that some of it might be NSFW? Just maybe?
You know, This Year’s Model, I hope that you will either come in here and explain yourself more fully, or that you are only a moderator for This Year and then we won’t have to worry about you any more.
I have explained my reasons.
The thread will remain closed.
and you will remain wrong.
I think part of the capacity to act as a functioning member of society is the ability to examine your judgments, compare them to others, and seriously consider the possibility that you are wrong when indeed everyone else disagrees (and has good reasoning behind their judgments.)
An inability to admit that you’re wrong indicates a very poor potential as a moderator here.