Tomndebb’s warning to WarmNPrickly

[Rhythmdvl]

I guess I kind of get a couple points. Just like each forum has its rules and varying levels of required decorum, there’s a non-universal expectation that when the mod hat/brackets are on similar rules of non-insult apply. Kind of like saying to someone in GD that they shouldn’t respond to inappropriate behavior, the should instead remain silent and report the post. A factor that gives rise to this is somewhat cultural — most of the text within mod brackets regarding warnings is dry, to the point, and matter of fact. Clearly there’s an element of chore-ishness about it (you’re modding after all), but it’s part of the impression. Where it’s really appreciated is in the appearance of neutrality that it creates.

Also, I think there’s something a bit unnerving about a snarkish comment made with the hat on, especially when there’s a suspension being handed out. I think this kind taps into the rational for the prohibition against pitting banned posters. Banning/suspending is pretty much last word, but a snark that can’t be responded to is kind of like insulting a just-banned member.

But be that as it may, these are just reasons to feel a bit uncomfortable, not jump on the hyperbole train and ride into town. Comments are one thing (where else would feedback come from?), but skating close to Pit territory is ridiculous. There was a reason they pulled mod threads to ATMB and it’s really cleaned up a lot of needless vitriol. Skating in all froth-mouthed over such a minor issue (and with such just cause behind the suspensions) really undercuts what you have to say.

And be that as it may (how many of these things can I go through?), what the hell was up with the two originally off the wall posts? Make some point? What point? Were they dragging in shit from somewhere else and just picking a random thread to come flip out in? Rereading their posts, I can’t begin to tell what the focus was other than to get banned. Makes no sense. While it may be bad form to talk about a poster banned for a lot of rules violations (e.g., constantly giving out medical information, threatening legal action against other posters, etc.), someone coming in and blatantly tearing the ‘don’t be a jerk’ rule to pieces isn’t really within the spirit of the rule.

[tomndebb]

@BigT

@tomndebb

You should really spend a bit more time watching GD. Far more posts to “dial it back” or “ratchet it down” or “take it to the Pit” are issued by Mods than are Warnings. (In fact, in two recent Mod bashings (for different fora), we were told by one faction that we should do nothing but issue Warnings rather than interfere with a thread, so there does not appear to be unanimity among the TM on that point.)

In the one I remember, you made the argument that the reason you closed a thread was because you didn’t want to hand out warnings to everyone involved. The counterargument was that, if they had really done something that merited a warning, you should have given them, then seen if that fixed the problem, rather than close the thread.

There was rather more to it than an expression that I simply was too tired, bored, uninterested, or otherwise unmotivated to issue Warnings. The point was that there comes a point where a thread has gotten too trashed to save. Simply Warning posters after a page and a half of invective is not going to save such a thread. Posters involved in the fight are going to open the thread to find an insult and respond before they get to the end and discover that the insult already received a Warning. Posters who are friends of the insulted, (or hold similar views of the issue), are going to do the same thing.
That is one reason why zombie threads tend to get locked in Great Debates: posters wander into sharp discussions without noting the dates and jump in with matches and gasoline to long-suppressed flames.

When the thread reaches that point, it simply makes more sense to deprive the flames of oxygen, rather than banking the coals and hoping that no one decides to rake them up into flames, again.

The reason that I tend not to issue Warnings at that point is based on my view of the purpose of having Warnings. An egregious violation of the rules gets a Warning as a heads up to the poster that he or she has crossed the line as well as setting a permanent record that this poster has chosen to engage in the flouting of rules. A group of posters who let their emotions pull them into a brief flame fest are not generally behaving in a way to deliberately flout the rules. Closing the thread gives them the heads up while I am not inclined to hand out Warnings simply because posters resorted to crimes of passion in a heated exchange.

[MeanOldLady]

Back on track.

@elbows

This was clearly an insult and I don’t see how it matters that both these people were on the same side of the argument.

Are you kidding? How can the following be interpreted as anything *but *a joke?

@The_Tooth

I’ll go out on a limb and predict that we are all indeed going to die.

@WarmNPrickly

You’re an imbecile. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the dead wont rise to feed of the flesh of the living.

You read that as **WarmNPrickly **insulting The Tooth as an imbecile for suggesting that people die, and that his contention was that we’d all reawaken as zombies and feast on human flesh?

[Fenris]

@Marley23

There are also some longtime posters here with fond memories of the days when the mods went a lot further with that kind of stuff, although I think if we were doing that today it wouldn’t be appreciated by many people.

I disagree, sorta. I think, under different circumstances it would be appreciated by posters.

The reason posters look back fondly on the days of Manhattan, UncleBeer, Coldfire and DavidB going toe-to-toe with the posters if needed was that the posters could fight back. Lookit the half-dozen “Opalcat attacks Coldfire (or UncleBeer) and Coldfire (or UncleBeer) kicks her ass” threads. Classics.

Now, under Ed’s “Our mods are so delicate that any hint of criticism will make them curl up a fetal position sucking their thumb, so no fighting back” rule, mods can be sarcastic, insulting* and the posters can’t respond except politely in ATMB.

Frankly, I think the old (the REALLY old) dynamic was better and healthier.

*Note, mods most often aren’t. I’m not accusing you guys of running amok insulting people. Just explaining why I think the dynamic has changed so radically

[tacoloco]

@TubaDiva

If you find what we do now offensive you should have been around earlier – once upon a time there was far more give and take and staffers were much closer to Cecil in their attitudes and this was not only permissible but appreciated. The restraints on staffers today make what we say and do a pale imitation of the used to be.

I don’t find it offensive at all. I just think it’s inappropriate for moderators to snark while under the moderator umbrella in a post.

[Marley23]

Other posters “fought back” plenty in the Pit between the start of the pay to post days (2004, I think) and the new Pit rules, which are about a year old. Even if we hadn’t moved moderation complaints to ATMB I don’t think that style would be appreciated today. It’s think it’s really nostalgia for the most part.

[TubaDiva]

@Fenris

Now, under Ed’s “Our mods are so delicate that any hint of criticism will make them curl up a fetal position sucking their thumb, so no fighting back” rule, mods can be sarcastic, insulting* and the posters can’t respond except politely in ATMB.

Frankly, I think the old (the REALLY old) dynamic was better and healthier.

*Note, mods most often aren’t. I’m not accusing you guys of running amok insulting people. Just explaining why I think the dynamic has changed so radically

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion but I do not believe that’s a fair stating of the situation.

Certainly the community has become more thin skinned – incredibly so. And there’s far too much time and energy and pixels devoted to analysis of what’s in a mod’s head and what was their intention and just what exactly they did mean to say and their motivations in so doing. And it’s always, always to the negative, sometimes grossly so.

A lot of what is thrown at moderators in the daily course of business would have been unthinkable back in the day. Mostly we’re expected to take it unless it’s at gutter levels. While we can’t be thin skinned – and I don’t believe we are – we shouldn’t have to wade in filth either or be constantly taken to task for perceived faults.

We strive to treat people with respect. For too many on this board that street only runs one way.

[Fenris]

I dunno–to me, much of the endless minor “I think this nuance of this word is insulting” crap that the mods (often unfairly) get is a byproduct of the lack of really open discourse.

In the olden days*, if you got pissed at a mod’s decision, you’d take them to the Pit, type a title like What the fuck crawled up Coldfire’s ass and died?, the mod and poster would fight it out with some kibitzing from others and that would be the end of it.

And mods could pit posters back–that’s another change I think was for the worse. Mods should never have been forbidden from pitting posters.

I have no way of proving it, but I really think that the imposed faux-civility just leads to thinner skin. Let’s face it–in the Manhattan/UncleBeer/DavidB era (not just those mods, but during their time) there was little or no “analysis of what’s in a mod’s head and what was their intention and just what exactly they did mean to say and their motivations in so doing” (nicely phrased) because what they meant to say was right there, in the open–including open dislike for the posters in some cases.

I grant that that was then/this is now—and I don’t know if you could change things back, even if you wanted to. I just thought it was a healthier dynamic.
*Damn…heh–was it really 9 years ago?

[Trepa_Mayfield]

@MeanOldLady

Back on track.

Are you kidding? How can the following be interpreted as anything *but *a joke?

You read that as **WarmNPrickly **insulting The Tooth as an imbecile for suggesting that people die, and that his contention was that we’d all reawaken as zombies and feast on human flesh?

Not to mention, WarmNPrickly is squarely in the wrong. Zombies are living dead. Dead. Meaning they’ve already died. Therefore, even if we do all reawaken as zombies, we’ll all have died at least once.

[BigT]

Yay, I come back and there’s a shitfest going on (and maybe it’s over now). Did the two posters that were suspended deserve it? Hell yeah. They were asking for it.

The rest is a bit murkier. Even a small amount of sarcasm, when it comes from somebody with absolute power, is very suspicious. It comes off much jerkier than someone who doesn’t have any power.

It’s a trust thing. Nobody cares if little johnny is secretly a jerk, as it doesn’t really affect them. But, if a moderator is a jerk, could cause a lot more problems, as you have no guarantee that their jerkishness won’t affect their moderation. It makes more sense then for a user to scrutinize moderators more closely, as they can actually affect their lives.

The main reason you could get by with it in the past is that you were more trusted. Part of this was because the board was smaller and people knew who you were. Part of it was because there was no record of past “mistakes.” Part of it was because Internet culture was different with a smaller portion of the world online. And part of it is just the culture of paranoia in the entire world due to things not going as well in the rest of the world.

ON PREVIEW RE: TUBA’S FIRST POST:

If I may engage in the same level of hyperbole: Nobody’s beating you up but yourself. If your actions provoke people, you can’t be surprised if they try to provoke you back. And, as mentioned above, since you are in power, what seems like a small action will often be met with a larger reaction, as you’re a bigger threat to them then they are to you.

Having said all that, I don’t think anyone rises to the level of beating you guys like mules that hasn’t been appropriately punished. (taco is responding as professionally as I can imagine, seeing as he’s upset by the sarcasm.) So I don’t think you are doing as bad a job as all that. But, if you honestly think you are being mistreated, your best action is to check yourself and see if you are mistreating others. There may be outliers, but, in general, people tend to be nice to people who are nice to them.

In fact, that’s my whole philosophy for everyone who complains about people being mean to them. You can sit here and hope that people will start being nicer. You can try to force everybody to be nicer, but that never works. Or you can try being nicer. When it comes down to it, the only person that you can actually control is yourself.
TOM:

That’s much clearer than I remember your argument being. Maybe it’s just me. Anyways, I think the problem is that warnings are a much bigger deal to people than they should be. It’s seen as a punishment in and of itself. To me, it seems like a mod note is closer to what a warning should be: a friendly note saying “Don’t do this again, or I might have to punish you.” But, for some reason, it being “official” seems to elevate it to a punishment in itself.

In that environment, I understand why you don’t want to give them out for people just getting heated in a thread. I think you and Gfactor agree on that. And I think you guys have been doing a really good job, only warning people who are obviously over the line.

This is why the original topic bothered me. It seems that WnP got caught up in the joke, and didn’t realize that his fake insult might have been perceived as a real one. I think an informal “That looks like an insult. Don’t do it again.” would have been more appropriate.

To your credit, you essentially offered that option afterward. And to WnP’s credit, he refused it, realizing that the “official” warning didn’t really hurt him, and that leaving it will keep people from trying to use “It was only a joke” as an excuse later.

BTW, I wonder if my being “impressed with how this event was handled” jinxed this thread somehow. Might I suggest a policy that you only discuss one moderating decision per thread, and, once it’s resolved, you close it? If people want to challenge your moderation in that thread, they are free to open another.

[MeanOldLady]

@pedescribe

Not to mention, WarmNPrickly is squarely in the wrong. Zombies are living dead. Dead. Meaning they’ve already died. Therefore, even if we do all reawaken as zombies, we’ll all have died at least once.

Correct. Only an imbecile would not have recognized that.

[Sapo]

@TubaDiva

There are some who believe that moderation should be “automod” – no personal interaction whatsoever, no right to comment.

I have seen that work on some places. Mods don’t exist as posters in those places (or maybe they do as socks). It is a valid alternative. I am not saying it should be done here, just that I can done and that it has. Different places have different personalities and it is neither fair nor logical to expect them to change.

Others feel that moderators are here to be kicked and beaten like rented mules for perceived faults of judgment or defects of character.

That should never be allowed. I think we can all agree to that. The problem is that if mods are allowed to be abusive, then members should be allowed to be abusive on return. It is either all or nothing. Otherwise:

We strive to treat people with respect. For too many on this board that street only runs one way.

The street becomes one way but on the other way. Which is not pretty either. As said here:

@Rhythmdvl

Also, I think there’s something a bit unnerving about a snarkish comment made with the hat on, especially when there’s a suspension being handed out. I think this kind taps into the rational for the prohibition against pitting banned posters. Banning/suspending is pretty much last word, but a snark that can’t be responded to is kind of like insulting a just-banned member.

I love me a mod smackdown as much as the next guy but only if the opponent is not hogtied and gagged.

As it is under the new Ed rules, the mods have free reign to snark the posters but the posters must look down and mumble thanks for it.

But then again, as we are so happily reminded every so often, the exit door is unlocked. My latest incarnation (fourth stage?) has come to terms that the dope is what it is and pushing for change is futile. Enjoy it while it is enjoyable and look elsewhere once it becomes unbearable or it implodes (don’t hold you breath for this one, the internets are a forgiving bunch).

[TWDuke]

The initial warning was silly. It was intended as a joke, it was received as a joke, the majority of people indicating an opinion recognize it as a joke, and even the moderator who issued the ruling seems to have known it was a joke, but thought it did not meet his standard of humor. The basis of a warning ought not to be “Could someone possibly misinterpret this post?” or “Do I like it”?

The suggestions of using a smiley (“Fuck off and die ;)”) or a direct quotation (as Mark Twain once said, “You sir, are a cunt”) for protection were, in my humble opinion, retarded.

X and Z’s, posts however, were so far out of line and out of left field that arguing in their defense or nitpicking the mods’ responses just makes the arguer look foolish, and weakens whatever reasonable arguments they may have on related issues.

ETA: On the other hand, it’s a little bit hard to swallow the mods’ playing persecuted victims of posters uncivil behavior. They have the power to revoke posting privileges for what amounts to rudeness. The rest of us might get a retraction and behavior from a mod or admin, if they’re feeling magnanimous.

[Rhythmdvl]

@TWDuke

The initial warning was silly. It was intended as a joke, it was received as a joke, the majority of people indicating an opinion recognize it as a joke, and even the moderator who issued the ruling seems to have known it was a joke, but thought it did not meet his standard of humor. The basis of a warning ought not to be “Could someone possibly misinterpret this post?” or “Do I like it”?

I thought he recognized it as a joke after paying a bit more attention to it.

Also, part of my original question about the warning was if he recognized it as a joke but warned anyway, was there a subtlety to the rules that I missed/was new. The articulation of the “try not to insult anyone even as a joke” bit was minorly lost on me beforehand, but the rational does make some sense. I guess it’s kind of like no swearing at grandma’s (mostly).

[WarmNPrickly]

@pedescribe

Not to mention, WarmNPrickly is squarely in the wrong. Zombies are living dead. Dead. Meaning they’ve already died. Therefore, even if we do all reawaken as zombies, we’ll all have died at least once.

Correction, they WERE dead then they UNDIED. My zombies, my zombie rules.
That said, I am extremely pissed about this thread. This is MY warning, so it’s MY prerogative to flame out. No one but me is allowed to flame out in MY warning thread.

[SkipMagic]

If it’ll help the flame out, I can provide the sarcasm. I’ve got a backlog and my manager’s told me I have to get 'em moved.

[Fenris]

Yeah, but that’s last season’s sarcastic quips.

You don’t expect me to pay this season’s prices for last season’s snark do you?

What kind of deal can you give me?

[BigT]

Forgot something:

Where do you guys hear “imbecile” being used as a legitimate insult, anyways? I’ve never heard it used except in comic situations.

[WarmNPrickly]

Yes, that was one reason I chose that particular insult. It still has some edge, but is pretty dated.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

@Fenris

In the olden days*, if you got pissed at a mod’s decision, you’d take them to the Pit, type a title like What the fuck crawled up Coldfire’s ass and died?, the mod and poster would fight it out with some kibitzing from others and that would be the end of it.

Some people, and some mods, enjoyed that. Others of us did not. I, for one, never read the Pit because that sort of discussion and commentary is not something I would voluntarily participate in. In consequence, any criticisms of my modding would rage on with no response from me. If I made an error in a decision, I’d never know about it because I wouldn’t see the “Fuck You, Dex” thread that complained. And if I did happen to see one, my reaction was usually, “Well, fuck you, too” rather than reasoned discussion. I think that’s normal human reaction: when faced with violence and insult, one tends to react with counter-violence and counter-insult.

I think it is much more useful to have a more polite approach. If you have a complaint, it gets posted here in ATMB and gets a response. We’ve revised decisions. If I make an error, I see a “Dex, you goofed” thread and I can reconsider my decision.

Longing for the “good ol’ days” seems to me to be misperceiving what those days were like. You obviously enjoyed it, and some of the mods enjoyed it, but many of us did NOT. And, it was ineffective in getting changes made. Yes, it was more effective in allowing free-range venting, screaming, and frothing at the mouth – a healthy outlet for some, but not conducive to promoting serious review.