Come on, man. It’s manson1972!
My apologies. Little phone, big thumbs, old eyes.
It’s cool. I wasn’t sure which smiley to use to indicate my actual username while simultaneously not seeming serious or mocking but still indicate joviality.
It certainly felt as though questioning the positivity of any story was treated as threadshitting.
Yes, they were examples of DGU’s, but many of them did not seem to have a positive outcome. In questioning any of these, moderators were often called upon to make a note about the nature of the thread being for applauding positive gun stories, not for questioning the positivity of the gun stories.
I did not feel as though any divergent discussion about the outcomes of these stories was appreciated. There ended up being enough mod notes in the thread that it just isn’t worth voicing an opinion on a story that someone else posted. There were a number of observations I had about many stories that filtered through there, but I did not feel comfortable posting them, given the hostility towards anything not pro-gun in that thread.
I’m tied for 16th place with 22 posts to a 3 year old thread with 1500 posts. That’s not really prolific.
ElvisL1ves has 32 posts, and is in at 12th place.
The prolific one, “mason1972” ,in 7th place with 49 posts has been banned from the thread.
That means the three of us “most prolific posters” make up 103 posts of the 1500+ opst thread.
Of the top 12 prolific posters to that thread, 9 of them I recognize as pro-gun advocates, with 886 posts between them.
Based on the actual facts, and given that I, as one of your “most prolific”, have stopped posting to that thread out of a fear of stepping wrong and drawing the ire of mods, and another has been banned from the thread, I’d say it is obviously very true.
aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Also, thanks for counting those up. I looked at my posts there and it didn’t seem enough to be considered a “prolific poster” in that thread, but that’s okay.
Why has nobody mentioned the elephant?
Allow me:
*Is it fair to say that the moderation in Bone’s gun thread is much more strict that anywhere else because the he’s a mod?
If that thread had been started by someone else it would have been sent to the pit preemptively on the day it was started?*
To be clear: I’m fine with moderators having some extra privileges as a poster, Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi and all that: So long as that is acknowledged. Now this is being discussed as if the OP of Bone’s gun thread is a random poster and the identity of the OP is irrelevant and that is (IMO) clearly not true.
FTR: Calling anyone but Bone “prolific” in this context is disingenuous at best.
Hell, I didn’t even know Bone had started that thread. And we communicate on the regular.
I know you have no reason to accept this at face value. That’s fine. But it’s never even occurred to me to claim any special privilege over threads I start or that another moderator starts.
It’s not nice to call him an elephant.
FTR Bone did not become a moderator until that thread was over a year old.
I wouldn’t say that’s fair actually. The thread was started in October of 2015. I became a Moderator on Nov 8, 2016. By that point there had been over 1100 posts with the same character of moderation throughout.
I could still very easily be posting additional examples on a daily basis, but around the time I was in discussion to be a Moderator, I decided that it would be better for me to stop. This was never discussed with Ed at the time, nor any of the MPSIMS mods. Though, before I became a Mod I did report a few posts here and there. The thing is, the reason I stopped posting regularly was as stated in the linked post, and also unstated was because i wanted to avoid the specific thing you are mentioning. To avoid putting the MPSIMS mods in any appearance of an awkward position, I thought it best to pull away from that thread. There are a lot of things I don’t post now for similar reasons. Objectivity in fact and appearance - it’s a personal goal.
During the time I was actively posting there, I curated the posts to ensure the outcomes were positive (in my view). Borderline incidents, or incidents where there wasn’t enough information I left off.
That thread isn’t intended for debate. That can be had in GD, or other forums. Rather, it’s a sharing and curating of anecdotal stories.
As the mod who issued the warning that triggered this ATMB thread, I did not consider who started the Positive Gun News thread because in all honesty, I never bothered to look to see who started it. As far as I was concerned, it was just another thread.
It gets special attention from the mods because the subject is a hot-button issue for many people. Similarly, if someone wanted to start a thread about only the positive things that Trump has done, that thread would also likely require a lot of moderator attention to keep it on track. I also don’t see any reason to immediately dump the thread over in the Pit. As long as folks only focus on positive things, the thread really wouldn’t be pit-worthy. If you start a more general discussion on any of these or any other hot-button topics, then anyone can post their thoughts on either side and that thread might end up in the Pit. But if someone has a specific aspect of something that they wish to discuss without the thread being pulled into a much bigger issue, we generally try to moderate such threads so that the particular topic can be discussed. This is definitely not unique to the gun thread.
If we moderators are posting as regular posters, the only special consideration we get is that we can’t get warned by other moderators. If we do something that another mod thinks is warnable, that gets kicked up to our admin. Other than that, we get no special consideration at all for threads or posts. As long as we aren’t acting as moderators, you can even pit our posts.