Fair enough Dex, but the point that seems to be missed here is that the rule changes work both ways. If the board wants decorum, then everyone should be subject to that decorum.
In the old days some of the mods bare knuckled with the posters in the pit. Then they cuffed them and put them in the slammer.
Nowadays some mods cuff first, then sneak in a shot or two to the solar plexus on the way to the slammer.
That’s just not cricket, old chap.
What, you made an error? An error?! AN ERROR!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Errors and differences in judgment seem to piss a lot of people off. Maybe the tradition of mod-complaints residing in the Pit helped, but it’s pretty absurd. Not that there aren’t occasions for pique, but the prevalence of knee-jerk vilification is way over the top.
Look what happened here. I still have no idea what drove X and Z off the deep end or what their particular issues were (if any could have been attributed to the thread). Then Tacoloco came in with would at the very least be worthy of conversation and just lashes in without missing a beat. Why?
I’m not in the if-you-don’t-like-it-leave camp. But I am in the if-you-don’t-like-it-discuss-it-like-an-adult camp. This is a tightly moderated Board, which means a lot more than a relatively low spam count (does that mean our email messages are less able to reproduce?). It’s not tightly modded in the same degree as some political boards, where there is an almost unity in voice and strict enforcement of ideology. It’s not like a tech or subject-specific board where the narrowness of most topics creates fewer opportunities for conflict. Instead, it calls for a host of judgment calls and enforcement of rules that, while vague and occasionally unevenly enforced, are crucial to maintaining the overall sense of decorum and quality of posts.
So a judgment or rule isn’t to your liking. So a mod did something wrong or something one doesn’t agree with. Why does that inspire so much anger?
Y did X and Z drive off the deep end? 
It’s always fun being called out, right?
I have no idea what your issue is with what I posted. My point, as has been articulated several times now, is that moderators need to put a lid on the snark when moderating.
Snarky moderators make for even more snarky responses. And since escalation can only end badly for one party, it is inappropriate. Unless we’re going to start hearing about mods being warned and suspended, which we all know isn’t going to happen.
That works both ways.
I have no answer for this. I can’t see a situation where I’d be truly angry with a moderator. Hell, even if I got suspened or banned, I’m pretty sure I’d have deserved it.
Well, isn’t this an object lesson in overreading/overreacting?
Sorry. I took the equating the mods to Mr. Rooney as a bit harsher than you intended.
It came across as first calling them a dick, then (mild?) incredulity at the suspensions. I took the “going out of their way to piss people off” as being pissed.
My overall comments weren’t meant to be/shouldn’t have been so taco-specific. The main expulsion of vitriol were from the posters before you and then there was the fond reminiscence of times when that was OK.
And yet it’s a butthurt shame when people can dish it out but can’t take it back. 
I agree that times have changed and people have gotten thinner skinned.
I think a compromise policy might be possible (although it might not be desirable): mods would be allowed to pit posters, and posters mods, but discussions of board policy would go into ATMB.
Again, I don’t know if we can go back–or if anyone other than me misses those days–but I really feel that the compromise policy of allowing posters and mods to blow off steam at each other (which really was the original point of the Pit) while still having a civil haven in ATMB for discussion of board policies makes a lot of sense to me.
Just to be clear: this is still the situation. You can blow off steam in the Pit at mods (and vice versa) FOR THEIR POSTS AS POSTERS. For their posts and actions as moderators, however, we all need to be reasonably civil and keep it in ATMB. A light touch of snark is acceptable (as in all forums), as long as it doesn’t cross the line into insulting.
Thus, if I say that Zymghchw Gjdfkski is the greatest Polish film actor of all time, you can pit me for that statement, call me a jackass for not recognizing Zbgnrtwz Brjrjrski, etc. If a mod says that Chicago Politics is not corrupt, you can pit that person for stupidity and poor grammar. And so on. In short, any “mod hat off” comments, we’re just like ordinary posters.
What’s off-limits for the Pit is “mod-hat on” comments or actions. NOTE: Whether we actually SAY “mod hat on” or “off” is irrelevant; we believe it’s almost always VERY clear when we’re doing board actions and when we’re posting as posters. (If in doubt, ask.)
I see the distinction Dex, but I’d argue (not really strenuously–I realize I’m probably in a small minority, but it’s worth at least put forward) that pitting a mod for mod-hat-on comments (and a mod pitting a poster for stupidity/borderline trolling/whatever should be ok too)
If (to pick a buddy of mine who won’t mind being made an example) GFactor scolds me (mod hat on) for posting what he believes is a spoiler in a LOST thread and I want to argue that the color of Hurley’s shirt isn’t a spoiler except to a completely deranged idiot and, no doubt, a procurator, I think it makes sense to allow that in the Pit: I’m not arguing CS’s policy about spoilers and since I was scolded and not officially Warned, it’s not really an ATMB issue.
And if GFactor thinks that I’m a syphilitic goat-raping spoiler-posting twit who’s staying JUST inside the rules to annoy him and he’s pissed that I’m rules-lawyering, he should be able to pit me as well.
PS: Neither Zymghchw Gjdfkski nor Zbgnrtwz Brjrjrski is the best Polish actor of all time. It’s Zchnchen Krybrznky, you communist. 
You take that back!
No U!
Really? How so?
I guess that’s where we will disagree. Warned or not, it’s certainly a question about what’s a spoiler, and can be discussed (civilly) in either CS or ATMB. As I said before, the question is whether the person protesting wants (new rules) some possibility of action, reform, revision, definition, whatever… or whether the person just wants (old rules) to vent.
I think most people would prefer to be heard, with some possibility of action, rather to simply scream and wave their arms. Better to light a small LED screen than to curse in the darkness, and all that.
When someone approaches me (and I don’t think I’m alone in this) rationally and calmly, asking for me to rethink some action/idea, I will listen and consider. When someone approaches me yelling and screaming and insulting me, I’ll only harden my position: damn if I would give in to some child just because they throw a temper tantrum.
But that’s the thing. Why are they only allowed to do one? Why not both? The venting helps you put your anger aside so that you can later express it rationally.
And, honestly, sometimes you get mad at someone for something even if you think what they did was technically right, or, at least, there wasn’t a better option. It would be nice to be able to get those emotions out. As it is now, people try to contain their emotions here in ATMB, but, ofttimes, that repression gets to be too much, and they wind up exploding.
(I’m not even sure that’s not what happened to X and Z. The only way I could understand their actions was if there was something that really bothered them. They did their best to try and explain it, but found it was pointless. So they wind up repressing their rage until they saw something that superficially resembled their problem and couldn’t (or decided not to) contain themselves.
Well, it’s either that or they were trying to cause problems. But even that often seems to come from animosity towards mod decisions. It’s kind of a “you screwed with me, so I’m gonna screw with you” mentality that’s so common that I think it must be innate.)
Here’s the problem with allowing pitting Mods for mod actions - you are effectively saying that Mod actions do not have to be taken seriously and accepted. Is it okay to question them, disagree with them, argue against them? Sure - in ATMB, in civil tones. Allow people to Pit Mods for being Mods, and that’s all some people will do. We already have plenty of that going on even with it not allowed.
I suppose the one gray area I see is when a Mod makes a snarky comeback as part of the Mod action. Now maybe the Mod action was reasonable, and I (as the hypothetical offender) actually agree it’s valid, but am irritated by the snark. Why can’t I pit the mod for the snark? “Fair enough, I’ll heed the warning, but eat my *** if you think I’m going to take that remark lying down.”
The big problem I see is posters being able to respond and separate the snark from the action. Especially when heated.
But I think that’s the point tacoloco is driving at. If moderators are allowed to snark in their actions, then posters ought to be able to reply to that snark without risking further action against them. If posters are leashed from properly replying to snark thrown their way, then it is only fair to leash the mods from snarking with their Mod hats on. Simple equation, simple fairness.
I do think it is far more appropriate for comments on Mod actions to be dealt with in ATMB than the Pit - that was my opinion long ago when the rules were different.
Seems to me there are two topics being considered - bitching about the mods, and discussing wether an action was appropriate. Those actions belong in different fora. Unfortunately, without allowing the bitching, you get the bitching in the discussion forum anyway. Food for thought.
There are plenty of snarky remarks about moderators and moderator behavior in this thread, and in many other threads in ATMB, and these haven’t drawn warnings or moderator notes. In fact, lots of complaints about moderation are made in a snarky fashion. The main problem is when posters escalate snark to outright insults or make other over the top remarks.